SPHS Fee Program, Directly, Provides Limited Park Management Benefits

According to park and site superintendents, the fee program has most benefited the parks and sites by providing, where there are staffed fee stations, an information liaison with visitors.  Superintendents also say the fee program has improved visitor recreational experiences and helped protect SPHS resources.  However, these two benefits largely result from the enhanced law enforcement program that SPHS instituted concurrently with the enhanced fee program. 

SPHS has not been able to use the fee program as a tool to manage visitor camping in the parks and sites.  In Wyoming, paying camping fees entitles park users to camp anywhere in the parks, unless posted otherwise.  Unlike most comparator state systems, SPHS does not limit park camping to designated sites or areas as a means of protecting natural resources.  SPHS reports that resource degradation is becoming a problem in some parks that have consistent high use.  There may be opportunities for the SPHS fee program to play a greater role in managing visitor use.

Fee Program Benefits Parks and Sites,

Both Directly and Indirectly

As a management tool, SPHS officials see the greatest direct benefit of the fee program to be the improved communication with park and site visitors afforded by the staffed fee stations.  Fee collectors can direct visitors to areas in the parks that are less crowded, and provide current information about park attractions and facilities.  In addition, they provide visitors with general information about sites, parks, and surrounding areas.  In turn, visitors can report emergency situations to fee collectors, as well as give them their comments about park conditions.  At historic sites, fee personnel often serve as part of the site operations staffing, performing other duties in addition to collecting fees.  Especially in the large water-based parks, the fee collectors may be visitors’ only contact with SPHS personnel unless they encounter park rangers.

Park and site superintendents responded to our survey that the fee program has also contributed positively to visitor recreational experiences and to protecting park and site resources.  They cite the improved visitor behavior and public safety benefits as the most significant.  SPHS officials believe that the parks have a more family-oriented atmosphere, and that underage partying has decreased.  This sentiment was especially high among superintendents of the large water-based parks.  However, the superintendents attribute these benefits largely to the enhanced law enforcement program that SPHS instituted concurrently with the phased fee collection program. 

Superintendents also viewed the fee program as making a positive contribution toward protecting resources.  However, similarly, most attributed that contribution to the law enforcement accompanying the fee program.  Having a greater law enforcement presence has reportedly reduced vandalism and lessened vehicle use in areas where prohibited, thus helping park managers protect the resources.  The fee program has made a direct contribution in this area, to the extent that the existence of fees and fee collectors has reportedly deterred some resource abuse that formerly occurred and “made people more accountable.”  Where parks and sites have staffed fee stations, fee collectors can explain park rules and restrictions, which superintendents say also helps protect park resources. 

Comparator States Manage Camping Use Directly Through Fee Programs

The state park systems we studied as comparators reported their fee programs generated the same indirect benefits:  improved visitor behavior and reduced vandalism.  However, in addition, they report greater ability to manage visitor use, specifically camping use, and greater ability to preserve park resources than does SPHS.  They are able to do this for three reasons:  they limit camping to designated campsites, they connect prices with specific camping opportunities, and they have at least limited reservation systems.  These practices, directly related to fee structures, enable the park managers to maintain capacity limits in their parks and sites. 

Capacity limits are estimates of the number of users a recreation resource or facility can accommodate while still providing a high quality recreational experience and preserving the natural values of the site.  Capacity limits enable parks to manage visitor use by better distributing and limiting that use.  Having capacity limits also helps park managers determine the level of restroom and garbage disposal services they need to maintain.  Thus, managing parks according to capacity levels protects resources.  Limiting capacity by creating designated campsites also can improve visitors’ experiences by preventing conflicts that can result from overcrowding.

Limiting camping to designated sites means that payment of camping fees entitles users to camp only in specific locations, rather than anywhere within park boundaries.  Designated campsites also lay the foundation for establishing reservation systems.  These systems better distribute use among parks, since campers are willing to travel greater distances to parks when they are assured of campsites upon arrival.  A broader distribution of camping use helps protect park resources.

SPHS Does Not Use Fee Program To Manage Camping Use

SPHS is not able to use its fee program the way other states do to manage visitor camping use, by connecting camping fees to designated campsites.  Although SPHS has not formally determined what constitutes a designated campsite, park superintendents report that there are some sites they consider to be designated.  In most parks, however, SPHS allows users to camp anywhere within park boundaries unless otherwise posted. 

The flat fee, adjusted for residents and non-residents, applies to all available camping opportunities.  Park officials believe that users do not always get camping experiences equal in value to the fee.  Some parks have more desirable camping spots than others, and areas within parks differ, such as being near or far from waterfronts and shelter. 

Fee Program Could Provide Additional

Management Information

The current fee program does not provide park managers with immediate information about park usage.  Most park and site superintendents say they can estimate usage on a given day, by relying on a combination of fee receipts, traffic counters, and opinions of park personnel for those estimates.  A majority of the superintendents believe that the fee program could be used to provide them with better information about recent or in-progress park or site use.

Currently, fee receipts do not provide information regarding the number of persons per vehicle or the number of users accessing state parks with annual permits.  Thus, the process is not providing a foundation for management information that would inform park managers’ decisions about use, development, and preservation of the parks and sites.  Further, when the new non-resident camping permit is made available in 2002, the one accurate assessment now provided by the fee program, the level of non-resident camping, will be lost.

Overcrowding At Some Parks Creates Need For Ability to Manage Camping Use

According to SPHS, there is a need to be able to manage visitor use, specifically camping use, at its major water-based parks.  SPHS staff report that over-crowding is damaging park natural resources, especially on summer weekends.  SPHS also reports that overcrowding at high-use parks is having an adverse effect on visitors’ experiences and overloading SPHS law enforcement and general sanitation capabilities.  However, the overcrowding is not system-wide:  some parks and the historic sites report visitor use below what they can accommodate.

SPHS rules give the division authority to close to public use all or parts of parks for the protection of an area, or the safety and welfare of persons or property.  In our survey, only two park superintendents reported that they have closed their parks due to overcrowding, and they made those decisions to protect park resources when all campsites were occupied.  One of them noted, “When the campsites are full, the public drive and camp all over, damaging the resources.”  A superintendent of a high-use water-based park indicated that closure is imminent, noting that overcrowding “creates a very real danger to our campgrounds.  Large quantities of gasoline are present in 5-gallon containers, and open fires and illegal fireworks are often present.”

SPHS Lacks Ability to Set Capacity Levels to Better Manage Visitor Use in Busy Parks

Although 94 percent of the superintendents believe there is a need to do so, SPHS has not established capacity levels for its parks and sites.  Comparator state parks systems set capacity levels for their parks based upon designated sites for camping, and upon parking lot capacity for daily use.  Since SPHS has open camping as well as designated site camping, officials say setting capacity levels would be difficult.

Further, park officials say they lack the financial resources to develop capacity levels either on a resource-based approach, or through a planning process in which public consensus would set the desired level.  From various public meetings and visitor comments it has received, park officials understand that the public is divided between wanting designated and open camping.  Officials strive to meet user preferences, and want to continue to allow visitors to camp in groups, which they see designated sites as prohibiting.

SPHS Has Not Developed a Formal Proposal for Managing Camping Use Through Fees

Although SPHS has recognized its limited ability to control use, which park officials believe is becoming a critical need in certain consistent high-use parks, it has not developed a specific plan to expand this control through the fee program.  SPHS has requested the blanket authority to modify fees to address heavy use and varying site attractiveness, such as proximity to facilities, shelter, or waterfronts.  SPHS has also requested legislation permitting fee modifications that would allow development of a reservation system.  However, SPHS has not formally proposed how it will use these authorities.

Since the Legislature is setting policy through the fee structure, granting the agency full fee flexibility would also be giving the agency authority to set policy.  We learned that over the years, legislators have discussed varying fees depending upon different circumstances among and within the parks and sites.  However, SPHS reportedly has not provided legislators with a concrete proposal for discussion and action.  Doing so is necessary to assure legislators that agency plans are consistent with legislative policy.

Requesting the transfer of fee-setting authority without a formal proposal contrasts with the steps SPHS took when proposing the phased fee program.  That proposal was supported by a study indicating there was potential for generating fees in the parks and sites that would be sufficient to cover collection costs.  Further, a pilot program was conducted at one park, and a follow-up report was prepared, to determine the possible outcomes of the fee program.  Finally, a phased approach was introduced to implement the fee program throughout SPHS.  SPHS did not support its recent request for fee-setting authority with such proposals and information.

Recommendation:  SPHS should seek legislative approval for a pilot proposal that will allow it to better manage visitor camping at high-use parks.

Rather than ask the Legislature for overall authority to vary fees throughout its system of parks and sites, SPHS should identify specific objectives and develop a proposal to address them.  For example, from our research, we learned that problems stemming from overcrowding are not currently system-wide.  These problems are primarily a concern for large, water-based parks, especially Glendo State Park, which is heavily used by both Wyoming and Colorado residents.  Given the significant increase in the Colorado Front Range population, and the impending closure of a popular Colorado water-based park, the overcrowding at Glendo could become an even greater threat to visitor safety and resource preservation. 

To address its concerns related to consistent high-use parks, SPHS might model a proposal after its own Guernsey pilot project, from which it went on to develop the fee collection program.  SPHS could develop a pilot project to meet Glendo’s needs and report to the Legislature on the project’s results.  Based on this information, the Legislature could determine whether the pilot program modifications should be maintained, whether the outcomes are consistent with its policy intent, and whether they can be applied to other parks facing similar challenges.

SPHS might also look to the Federal Recreational Demonstration Program (FRD program) as a model.  In this program, Congress authorized four federal land management agencies to test a variety of new fees at a limited number of their sites.  Congress allows agencies to retain all of the fee revenue generated by new fees, with 80 percent to be used at the sites where they were collected.  The purpose of this program is, in part, to use fees to increase the quality of visitors’ experiences and enhance resource protection.  Park managers have used fee revenue for facility enhancement and backlogged maintenance as well as for operations related to public use, such as law enforcement.  Congress has required that the agencies report on demonstration project results. 

In developing a demonstration proposal to address the high-use challenges exemplified by Glendo, SPHS might propose any of several possibilities:  modifying fees, eliminating camping permit use, or varying other fees or operations to address problems most severe at that park.  Following the example of the FRD program, SPHS might propose that a portion of any increased revenue generated at Glendo through the pilot program stay at the park to develop means to better control capacity and meet visitor needs.  This could include capital construction projects to develop more designated campsites or areas, or adding operational resources in the areas of law enforcement, maintenance, or fee collection.